Thursday, June 27, 2013

I simply can't believe it.42 is as capitalistic as you can get.Because racism had been so highlighted in the trailer, and it's so easy to be classified as a racist by socialists, all the energy of popular culture seemed to point to a pro-Obama take on Moneyball, but it was the exact opposite, and a tribute not only worthy of the great Jackie Robinson, but baseball, capitalism and America as well. The acting by the majority of the cast is excellent--Harrison Ford could easily pick up a Oscar nom for Best Supporting Actor for his role as owner of the Dodgers--and there is an even distribution of characters with whom you want to bond and share their struggles, and that is an accomplishment. Why is it pro-capitalist? For three reasons. First, baseball is about money, and making money is one of the driving reasons for signing Robinson; secondly, it's not about skin color, but who has the skills to pay the bills: "If Robinson can do a better job at short stop than I can, he deserves my job," and seeing that short stop is all ready taken, Robinson adapts to play first base.

Harrison Ford portrays Dodgers' owner Branch Rickey. Initially, he claims the reason he wants a black player on the team is to tap into the black demographic attending baseball games. Later, he reveals to Robinson that a black catcher was on a team he had played on in his youth and he didn't do enough to help him so he was making up for it now with plans to recruit more black players into his team. The film employs creative symbolic schemes--like how Robinson's wife discovers she's pregnant--to deepen our understanding of the effect Jackie Robinson has had on American history. This film focusing on the game of baseball is possible because when a person has a talent--like hitting a ball with a piece of wood--they can make big money and earn a respectable living as a professional. Like the skateboarders we saw in in Dredd, capitalism is about a person discovering their true talents and how those talents can benefit themselves and society at large, not about the government deciding who will do what (as discussed in Man Of Steel).

Being in a position to do something, Branch Rickey (Ford) makes up for all that hasn't been done in the past. Rickey--a model of what a good capitalist is and does (like Tony Stark with Harley in Iron Man 3)--patronizes Robinson (symbolically, all of black baseball) by Rickey using his own capital and position in the league to change what has been inherently unfair to the black population and inherently hurting the baseballleague simultaneously although they think their racism protects them but really it's damning them. Likewise, 42 slaps liberals in the face by demonstrating what real racism is and what real racists do rather than not liking a lying, corrupt, dictatorship. There is more to discuss on the film and we will, but let's take a moment to skim over The Purge.﻿﻿

"All emergency services will be suspended" should have told me right off this would be a pro-socialist film because, who doesn't want to be able to call an ambulance when you are hurt? The problem is, like with all socialists, they can't make a point without lying about their opposition. You want guns to protect yourself? You can have guns but that's all you'll get. You don't want struggling businesses to be "floated" by the government bail out programs? No one will get any assistance, so see if you don't come begging for socialism then. Yes, that's how the film goes.

﻿﻿This would be a great film to go see with friends (there are two brief make-out scenes, no nudity, some foul language but plenty of violence). Not that films like Man Of Steel, Iron Man 3 or Star TrekInto Darkness aren't great films to go see with your friends, but when you see a film like The Purge, you want to talk about it with someone because there are numerous moral decisions made in the film and it will bring out the truth in audience members just like the film's characters. Another title for The Purge could have been The Hunger Games Continued. Both films rely upon sanctioned murder to convey the evil of capitalism, because letting a business that can't make it go out of business is like committing murder,... to socialists, except that it isn't murder, because a business doesn't have a soul like a human does, but socialists don't believe in a soul anyway and that's how they want us to see it.

Why do the attackers in the film wear these strange masks? Socialists contend that's the "mask" capitalists and the wealthy wear all the time, a mask of happiness and perfection, hiding our real animal instincts to kill and take revenge because we are terrible people and money has done that to us. This is an important point, because the film never suggests that the absence of money will make us better people which is what they want us to naturally conclude even though they know themselves that isn't the case, but what does it matter as long as they win? So, when you see something like this poster, that's how socialists see Americans who worship God and want free markets and a family and home so, therefore, we deserve to die, and they want all socialists to know it, but they also want us, the capitalists to know it, so we will willingly offer ourselves as sacrifices as the film puts it. We should add that, although the film only cost $3 million to make, it grossed around $36 million its opening weekend; I guess capitalism works for the film makers.

The reason the film is "confusing" is because the term "purge" is used to describe what socialists/communists do to their own citizens/Party members when someone doesn't agree with them or threatens their power. Cleverly, however, the socialists are dis-associating themselves with it and applying it to capitalists; remember in Evil Dead when the blond girl cuts her arm off after being bitten? A perfect example of what capitalists do when a business isn't performing, you cut off the infected member to save the healthy whole (we see the exact same device used in World War Z, but with the exact opposite meaning). In The Purge, the film argues that capitalism is "purging" because the rich are protected by their wealth but the poor are the ones who suffer because they are exposed (the film says this blatantly with "experts" on the news shows in the film).

After all these years, Bill Murray has officially approved a script for the third installment of Ghostbusters and the film has been given the green light to start production. Armie Hammer (J. Edgar, The Lone Ranger) will not be cast as Marvel's Ant Man but Vin Diesel is in talks for The Avengers 2. Opening this weekend is The Heat with Melissa McCarthy (Bridesmaids, Identity Thief) and Sandra Bullock. Also opening is White House Down with Jamie Foxx and Channing Tatum (I might add, for at least the second straight day in a row, the film's interest level has been at 0%).

This might not be a film a lot of people would go see, however, Thanks For Sharing is one more definite sign that popular culture is learning its lesson and starting to retract about promiscuous sex and the consequences it has on a person:

Why is this important?
It's revolting against the idea that humans are animals, we are not controlled by our instincts, we control our actions and we have to take personal responsibility for our actions and we have to help each other do it. That's a pretty great moral lesson from Hollywood, huh? It's demonstrating that sex isn't just sex, like going out to a restaurant to have dinner, sex has spiritual, moral and psychological consequences that are real and need to be realized and corrected in our behavior.

Dwayne Johnson with three Oscar-winning make-up artists on the set of Hercules the Thracian Wars now filming for release next summer. Why the long hair? Perhaps Hercules will more closely resemble the Biblical figure of Samson (who had long hair because un-cut hair was the sign of a prophet/one dedicated to God in Biblical times) rather than a football lineman. It's reported that Hercules will be merely mortal rather than the demigod and his main enemy is going to be a "revolutionary" who is also a "barbarian." I like the sounds of that so far! In other news, Will Smith will not be joining the cast of Independence Day 2 (it has been confirmed that there is a gay character in the film) because Smith is "too expensive." Liam Neeson has been paid $20 million for Taken 3. In Kenneth Branaugh's remake of Walt Disney's Cinderella (2015), Cate Blanchett has been cast as the step mother and Helena Bonham Carter will be playing the fairy godmother who will first appear to Cinderella as an old beggar woman before revealing her true identity. If you haven't heard, Robert Downey Jr has officially signed for The Avengers 2 and The Avengers 3; Tom Hiddelston's Loki, however, will not be returning for The Avengers 2, fueling my own speculation that Loki dies in Thor the Dark World.

I have to admit, I am looking forward to Percy Jackson: Sea Of Monsters 2 (out August 7). Why? Kronos has been unleashed, we learn in this new trailer, just as he was in Wrath Of Titans (Sam Worthington), and Kronos--being the universal symbol of chaos and anarchy--is what gave birth to the Olympian gods who each represent something that imposes order on society and humanity. The "invisible dome" we see in the trailer, protecting Camp Halfblood, invokes the TV series Under the Dome and the dome protecting the Land of Oz in Oz the Great and Powerful.

Why is the storyline the releasing of Kronos so the Olympians will know death? Well, doesn't this all rather reflect what has happened in America? Our protective "dome" shielding us from the attacks of the world fell on September 11 and the enemies of America have been pouring in since as we have been betrayed by those who said they were "on our side" and offered hope and change. Think I am exaggerating? What does Grover say: "Let me make sure my health insurance is paid." Grover is taking responsibility for his health insurance, he isn't leaving it to Obamacare to take care of him (it was also Grover's character who mentioned the "recession" in Percy Jackson and the Olympians: the Lightening Thief). Overall, as Pan (Stanley Tucci) says, their plight calls for the strongest and the bravest, so we see how a "challenge" is met by bringing out the very best in the inhabitants of Camp Halfblood.

Luke Evans and Orlando Bloom star in The Hobbit the Desolation Of Smaug. As in the upcoming 2 Guns with Mark Wahlberg and Denzel Washington, the second part of The Hobbit forces factions unwilling to work with each other to work with each other and, knowing the third film will focus on the epic Five Armies history referenced in both The Hobbit and The Lord Of the Rings, it's reasonable at this point to surmise that the future allies are being revealed in all their distrust and rivalries now so they can be united later, rather like what we have seen in Monsters University.

I am still working on the post for World War Z; as often happens, as I work and am forced to recognize and articulate images and events in the narrative, more of the hidden reveals itself and I now recognize it to be the most evil film supporting socialism and condemning democracy, religion and freedom ever made. For example, in the trailers, we have seen the wife ask, "How do we know they're coming?" and Brad Pitt's Gerry replies, "They're coming." Who else has said, "They're coming" recently? Tony Stark in Iron Man 3 (the reason he can't sleep at night and has prepared the whole army of Iron Man suits) and John Malkovich's character in Red 2: "They're coming, I can feel it." What Red 2 and Iron Man 3 are afraid of coming, is what Gerry wants to come in World War Z: the United Nations. What is "salvation" for the socialists is death and destruction for the capitalists.
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner

Monday, June 24, 2013

A pre-quel to Monsters, Inc. is appropriate for at least two reasons: first, we know that these wily college students will end up, not only the best of friends, not only at the very top of the ladder of success of Monsters Inc, but also saving the business, the town and re-writing the rules to make the company even more profitable. Mike (Billy Crystal) isn't going to be a Scarer, he's going to be something greater. The real point of this, however, isn't to find out who Mike and Sully (John Goodman) were before, it's to remind us of who we were before: what the long, hard was that we ourselves have trod that wasn't filled with easy pickings and success ready to be served up on a silver platter. Secondly, Monsters University makes it clear that, to get anywhere in life, you have to be a good person, and you are not only responsible for being a good person yourself (so you can make the right and difficult decisions) but also so you can help others and not be a hindrance to them being a good person. Politically speaking, Monsters University directly butts heads with World War Z in that, whereas WWZ is going to promote "weakness," when Mike in MonstersUniversity says, "I'm okay being okay," you know that he knows he's not okay with that, he's going to do whatever it takes (being fastest mail delivery, being the best cafeteria worker, being the best can operator, etc) to get to the very top and fulfill that long-awaited dream he knows in his heart is still waiting for him, which brings us to this image. The "pig" Mike rides is the mascot from another university Sulley has kidnapped, and the pig symbolizes different aspects of Mike and Sulley. Just as the pig has gotten away from Sulley, so Sulley's piggish ego has "gotten away" from him and threatens to ruin his college career just as the runaway pig ruins the campus. Likewise, holding the Monsters Inc hat Mike received as a little monster that symbolizes his hopes, dreams and ambitions, so the pig has Mike's dream in his mouth, i.e., a pig usually symbolizes the base appetites anyway, and the mouth also symbolizes the appetites; a hat, like hair, usually directs us towards what a character is thinking or what governs them because it's worn on the head. Mike's goal to be a scarer isn't purified the way it will be as he and Sulley work their way up through Monsters Inc towards the end of the film, rather, right now, he's young and arrogant and wants what he wants (to be a scarer) because being that meets the requirements of his ego, or, in other words, Mike (like Sulley) is so full of himself that and proud that he's not worthy of his dream yet, and that often happens to us in real life. Everything about this film impressed me thoroughly and I cant think of a better family film that's out there right now.

If Christopher Nolan is behind it, it's going to be amazing.
I just saw Man Of Steel tonight, which Nolan co-produced and co-wrote the script, and if you haven't seen it, it is a driving engine for making 2013 an epic year for film, comparable only to 1939. I saw MonstersUniversity this weekend, and, if I had kids, I would make sure this was the type of film they would be watching all the time: this is the American work ethic at play, and I do mean to juxtapose "work" and "play" because that's that backbone of the film and the dominant reason it did so well, knocking out Brad Pitt's World War Z, which still did far better than I anticipated (especially after I saw it) and well enough that Paramount has all ready started the sequel for the film. So, about World War Z,...﻿﻿﻿﻿

Why Superman now? You can argue that it's because Warner Brothers wants to makes their own Avengers film and they need Superman to do it, and that's a legitimate angle, however, if Superman were not serving some specific cultural role, they wouldn't see resurrecting Superman as viable. The answer to this question lies throughout the entire film: people will reject you, you have to hide this part of yourself, you have to control it,.... Superman, in other words, is the concentrated, super-human part of America itself, America the Super Power, and what is said of Clark can be said of this country. Just like in The Incredibles, with everyone resenting the super hero family, so everyone in the world seems to resent America, but we must keep our own focus and discipline ourselves to doing the right thing, because the evil invasion of Zod is surely upon us. Why did they witch it to Man Of Steel? Most of the fighting takes place in Metropolis (New York) and that's the home of the skyscrappers, the City of Steel, and the destruction we see in this symbol of New York is the destruction to the world's financial capital but also destrution to the family (right before Superman kills Zod). Everything seems to have been perfectly done, from the moments when Clark has facial hair, to his "enhanced" super powers of seeing and running (which symbolize his greater wisdom). Zod makes a speech nearly identical to what we hear in Emperor (Matthew Fox, Tommy Lee Jones) and that difference between Zod's birth and upbrining (really we should say "breeding") starkly differs from Clark's and Chris Nolan wants you to know it.

﻿﻿﻿﻿Sadly, and I do mean, genuinely, sadly, I didn't think it was a very good film: I thought it would be very pro-Agenda 21, and perhaps it was trying to lead us in that direction, but it seemed to me--watching the film--that, first, the audience's relationship to the Lane family was contrived: it was based on a formula that just didn't work for me to build that necessary bond and willing suspension of disbelief that allows for catharsis to take place (which is the point of the zombie genre). The biggest problem with the film, however, was the constant deferral of what started the zombie apocalypse: we never really find out how or why it starts. It can be argued, and I will discuss this, that we never really find out in Night Of the Living Dead what caused that zombie outbreak, however, we do see the moment in the cemetery which allows us to fill in the blanks; we aren't afforded that in WWZ. Gangster Squad was an okay film that very much believed in its anti-capitalist platform, as did Lawless which was an outstanding film; for the $200+millions spent on WWZ, however, it's like that don't believe in anything and that is disappointing because, to me, the best part was the end, but even that was a state of contradiction that really doesn't work. The film's encoding is like the wave of zombies avoiding the sick person they mill around and it's too bad, there was a lot of potential here, but speaking of potential,....

Clark Kent as a young boy wearing his red cape. Why is this a good image? Well, the dominant colors of the laundry are reds, whites and blues, just like Clark's outfit. Why? There are American flags throughout the film, as well as intentional Christ images that are most welcomed. These are the clothes of everyday people being "hung out to dry," and the clothes that are clean are important to Clark's identity. In other words, this image summarizes what we see throughout the film, that Clark has to keep his direction in life clean, he has to keep his motives clean, he has to free himself of violent, selfish and other "dirty" impulses, so that he can become the man he's destined to become.

A Yahoo article on Man Of Steel had talked about his "dark side" being revealed and fans being upset about a moment he has in the film; I am not quite sure if it's the part after the "disagreement" in the bar takes place and the trucker goes out to find that the "waiter" had rammed electric poles through his truck or when--to save a family from being burned to death by Zod--Clark Kent/Kal-El breaks Zod's neck and then freaks about it. There is a lot to both scenes we will discuss, however, I think with the death of Zod Clark Kent saw the extinguishing of Zod's "potential" and possibility, the idea that the Land of the Free and the American Dream wasn't going to apply to someone, that to protect our freedom (symbolized by the family in imminent peril) freedom was not going to be possible for what Zod symbolizes and we know this will have serious repercussions for Clark Kent/Kal-El in future versions.
And for Now You See Me,....﻿

Both characters, rather they realize it or not, have been in some sort of "prison" throughout the film. Even knowing what was going to happen, this is one of those you could watch several times and pick up something new with each additional viewing (like background locations and images contributing to scenes that we would naturally "overlook" on a initial screening). Now You See Me is so diverse, it quickly makes numerous theoretically approaches possible, so we will try to take these on in the review. For example, each character has a designated role in the film; where have we seen that recently? The Cabin In the Woods. Merritt (Harrelson) tells Hobbs (Ruffalo) that he has "daddy issues," and that is certainly true, leading to a psychoanalytic discussion with his father's watery grave possibly holding the secrets of Hobbs own arrested sexuality. The Four Horseman are trying to become members of The Eye, a secret organization for magicians that is by invitation only, which leads us to "seeing" the C-Eye-A, the FB-Eye, and the Eye-RS, a destabilization of meaning for deconstruction. Of course, there is also the Reader Response approach. A film with Jesse Eisenberg and Woody Harrelson sparks to mind Zombieland, in which Eisenberg's and Harrelson's characters find themselves at an amusement park by a carousel, just as they do in Now You See Me, so we can ask, are we to examine the film as a "zombie" genre? Because of the way villains and "heroes" conduct themselves, we have a very rich potential for game and play theory as well. I was impressed with the film on a number of levels and can't wait to see it again, although I am sure that is not everyone's response to it.

﻿I read what happens in the film before going to see it, and I am certainly glad I did. For those who didn't, there was probably a sour taste left in their mouth at the end, a feeling of being "cheated" and that's legitimate, because that's how the film wants you to feel, rather like at the end of Looper with the "suicide" of Joseph Gordon-Levitt's character. I very much approve of Now You See Me--thoroughly so--and the way it achieved its end, but it's definitely something we will need to discuss. Let's say that you haven't seen any of these films so far thus; what should you focus on seeing? You have to see Iron Man 3, you have to see Star Trek Into Darkness; preferably, you have seen Fast and Furious 6 and you have to see Man Of Steel. Hopefully, you will also see GI Joe Retaliation--that's a really important film on a number of levels, and I firmly believe that Snake Eyes (the black ninja) is,... take a deep breath,... the GREATEST HERO OF ALL TIME. I've thought about that a lot, and I don't say it lightly, but I think he's the character against which all other heroes will have to be compared, even the Man Of Steel. Hopefully you will also see Hanseland Gretel Witch Hunters: it's probably only a "B" level film, however, there are numerous facets most intriguing and quite original in the political dialogue we have been following and it would be to your advantage to see it. Also, if for some reason, you haven't seen The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, you absolutely must see that.﻿﻿

There is another reason to see The Incredible Burt Wonderstone: it's about magic. How many films, including Now YouSee Me, have involved magic? Don't forget "Magic" Mike, Red Lights (Cillian Murphy, Robert DeNiro), Oz the Greatand Powerful (there are others I am not remembering). There were a lot of sexual situations and discussion in the film, I don't remember any nudity but it has been awhile since I've seen it; it was definitely better than Seeking A Friend Forthe End Of the World. Like so many other films, The Incredible Burt Wonderstone also hearkens back to the 1980s, when the film opens (we know Clark Kent came to earth in 1980 because he's 33 years old, the same age Christ was when he died). Again, like The Internship and Monsters University, The Incredible Burt Wonderstone demonstrates that competition is good, difficult, but good, whereas films like The Hunger Games and World War Z (as well as Now YouSee Me, but in a specific, targeted way) make it look like competition is bad and only bad things come of it; this is a genuine cultural war being fought out between these films and this happens to be one of the films that takes this specific line of the public discourse and expands upon it.

﻿﻿Out this week on video is The Incredible Burt Wonderstone. Granted, it wasn't that incredible, however, it does offer an incredible critique of capitalism which did amaze me, really. For example, Burt (Steve Carell) has really spent his millions he made in his ultra-lucrative magic show and has only a savings bond from his grandmother after he breaks up the act (the grandmother symbolizing the old mother land, the old promise of America and it still being "around" for him to cash in on ) while Anton (Steve Buscemi) goes to an impoverished country. Instead of handing out food to the people, Anton gives them magic kits; one little boy takes a rabbit (meant to be used in a magic show) and pulls out a knife, ready to eat it. This was a gutsy move the film made, because it distinguishes America from such impoverished countries by showing how those populations want to be fed, but don't want to take advantage of opportunity ("Give a man a fish," etc.) whereas, in America, you teach someone how to fish, you don't give it to them. That was gutsy, they didn't have to do something like that. ﻿

I remember this (to me) as being the funniest part of the film; why is it important? For at least two reasons. First, the arrival of Jim Carrey's character on the magic scene has forced Anton and Burt to fundamentally change their game from magic to endurance tests (which you can see Burt's hysterical response that he doesn't have any endurance) but this accurately reflects what has happened to America politically speaking. Ronald Reagan said, "Republicans see every day as the 4th of July. Democrats see everyday as April 15th." Whereas the working class of America sees the business of America as getting to work and fulfilling our dreams and making America a better place, the liberal population sees the government as controlling every aspect of our lives (like the see-through glass case the two magicians are in) and reducing us to our bodily functions (they are supposed to stay in the case for like a week, with no food or water or going to the bathroom). Different characters in the film keep saying that Steve Gray (Carrey) "isn't doing magic," rather, disfiguring himself, mutilating himself or risk permanently damaging his vital organs; in other words, Gray has really taken the "mind game" out of magic (the audience willing to be fooled) and makes a spectacle of himself instead. Now the film finishes with another perfect critique of capitalism that is all too true and what we all have to be wary of, but films and other artistic avenues are supposed to do this in a capitalist society because art is one of the watchdogs that protects us all.

Another film that came out last week is Stoker. There is nudity, sex and foul language in this, and it is certainly not for everyone; however, ﻿if you are up to it, you know you are watching a well-crafted film as it takes place and this is one of those films that is going to influence other film makers. If you like symbols, Stoker is full of them; if you like Hitchcock, he seems to be lurking in the shadows of every corner. Every aspect of the film is, truthfully, masterful in its artistic rendering and will provide you with great "food for thought" if you enjoy dissecting films' meanings.

﻿﻿﻿﻿I can't believe it, but my pen ran out of ink half way through Man Of Steel and there were so many things, especially that Zod said, that I didn't get noted so I might have to go back and catch it again, but if you haven't seen it, it was fabulous. I was a little doubtful that a take on Superman could pull it off--and I didn't have faith in director Zach Snyder, to be truthful--I don't think it could have been any better. I have not yet seen The Bling Ring, The Internship, The Purge or The East (Mud and 42 are still showing in the area so I am going to get those in this week before they are removed) but I am going to get to these important posts first!
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner

Monday, June 17, 2013

Without a doubt, Mel Brooks' book World War Z An Oral History of the Zombie War is a platform for the implementation of the United Nation's Agenda 21. Like Steven Soderbergh's Contagion (Gwyneth Paltrow, Jude Law) from 2011, World War Z (the film) will prepare us for two new realities that we have never dealt with before: martial law (unless you live in Boston and dealt with it in the police hunt post-Marathon bombings) and the destruction of humanity and we are talking 1/3-3/4 of the world's population intentionally destroyed by the United Nations through a virus/artificially created financial meltdown of the global system. "Zombie" is just a code word for anyone not willing to go along with the idea and who will, therefore, have to be exterminated on order. Whose order? The UN. That's why the most popular, handsome man in the world, Brad Pitt, has been chosen to play a UN investigator to invest the role with glamor and respectability, so we will welcome the UN into America. Why would the UN come to America? They have all ready been here--as if we were a Third World country--to monitor the 2012 elections to insure Obama would win again. Agenda 21 is all about making one world government with a few selected cities to be populated by a hundred million people or so (everyone else will be killed) and no religion. The ultimate euphoria of human intelligence has evolved to this global Cain vs Abel battle that Hitler started and the UN will achieve.

Well, the mystery over "which way" World War Z will go is over; director Marc Forster told Film JournalInternational:

"I've been conscious of working in the [zombie] genre from the beginning, and World War Z is so large in scale," Forster says. "There are a lot of original aspects in the film that I think people haven't seen before. For example, when coming up with the zombies and how they move, I based them on a swarm theory. What I mean by that is originally, when you look at Romero films from the '70s, his zombies move very slowly--I think because he was making a commentary on the consumerism of human beings at the time. For me, today, it was more about zombies swarming, a metaphor for overpopulation. We have fewer and fewer resources in our world today, and more people, so if those people turned into zombies, we are talking about large numbers and huge swarms." (MacDougall, 10)

This is a great point. Where did that wall come from? Capitalism and free markets don't build walls like that to keep people inside against their will, socialism/communism does (the Berlin Wall, the Great Wall of China, the Iron Curtain that prohibited members of the Soviet Bloc from leaving to travel to the West, in other words, a wall doesn't have to be tangible, but it can). When did it become such a sin to be a human being? When it became a sin to be born, with the passing of Roe vs Wade. When "being born" became an arbitrary option of the mother, being human ceased to be dignified and became a burden upon the ecosystem. People who defend life will never adhere to the "Final Solution" proposed by Hitler's regime and being implemented today throughout the world by the UN (yes, that's right, the UN). People who are "pro-choice," however, believe there is no sanctity to life and that life is to begin and end when the government says so (religion has been abandoned by pro-choice people, because you simply cannot hold that a woman has the right to arbitrarily chose to abort her baby and that God is divine and in charge of all our lives, the two positions are impossible to hold simultaneously, because the woman has made herself God (or the man forcing her to get the abortion) by deciding who lives and who dies). The "swarming effect" we see in the image above is probably going to be used as a metaphor for how hard it is to climb the social ladder,... ? Just my guess, to me, that's people who have been reduced to the level of livestock by their governments and are desperately trying to get to freedom away from their governments. In Now You See Me, we see The Eye taking the place of the UN and being artfully debunked (my review is coming up on that).

Why is this important?
For at least two reasons.
First, it validates what we do here, decoding. Like Forster decoding Romero's zombies to see consumerism, we decode as well, and, likewise, all of us--including myself--are trapped in our own perceptions about reality and politics (there is, by the way, no way you can get at consumerism for Romero's zombies unless you are erasing about half the film). We also see, beyond my own observations, Forster encoding his zombies as "a metaphor for overpopulation" (but, in spite of Forster trying to come off as original, we have all ready seen the "swarming" effect in I Am Legend with Will Smith). Forster's quote about having "fewer and fewer resource and more and more people" is a line from the UN's book justifying the Final Solution it is determined to enact to save the planet which leads us to our second point.

The easiest way to determine the legitimacy of a "reading" or interpretation is to see if there are other sources saying the same thing and we see it in The Hunger Games (please see The Hunger Games: Hitler & America's Anti-Socialism). There was a controversy regarding this salute Katniss gives the audience and whether or not it resembles the "Heil Hitler." In May of last year, when I originally reviewed the film, I said it was undecidable, it could be seen as that but it didn't have to be. Given the greater fervor of revolution in the sequel Catching Fire, the "poor people" who are locked up in their districts are supposed to symbolize us, the people of America, and the evil Snow (Sutherland) is the 1% who rules over us (this isn't a convincing message the film sends to us, because most of us see ourselves as being locked up because of Obama's socialism and we want to get back to the way things were BEFORE the 2008 crisis, but this is how propaganda works, and it may work against the authorities). Anyhow, there is an important "slip" in Catching Fire: Snow says that the victors of the Hunger Games (which is Moneyball (Brad Pitt) inverted; please see Moneyball & the Great American Economy for more) must be eliminated, which is what socialism does, not capitalism, because you have to have a world full of Jay Carneys, Susan Rice and Eric Holders to keep a socialism going, in other words, socialism is the rule of the mediocre over the masses, because anyone really smart knows that socialism is a dead end. The problems with The Hunger Games is that it fed the audience images of what we think of under socialism and communism, not democracy and free markets, so if Catching Fire is going to continue in this vein, to incite us to a "revolution" against the 1% and Constitution, it/s apt to make us revolt against Obama and his dictatorship.

Before 2008, none of us thought of ourselves as "burdens" or not having "the right" to exist; none of us thought of ourselves as zombies, but, alas, with the "Hope" and "Change" of Obama, we are a burden and we do not have the right to exist outside of his or the UN's granting us the right to exist. In the trailer for World War Z, sadly, when we see the Constitution being taken out, the Constitution is really being thrown out, and we have to get used to a world where "inherent rights and liberty" no longer exist, because the Statue Of Liberty isn't a beacon of hope, she's nothing but a melting snowman destroyed by "global warming." PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE DO NOT GO SEE THIS FILM THIS WEEKEND! POST IT EVERYWHERE AND TELL YOUR CHURCH AND YOUR FRIENDS, ON FACEBOOK, TWITTER, PINTEREST AND AT WORK, NOT TO GO SEE THIS FILM. Boycott is still one of the strongest weapons we as Americans have, and it's important that we use it! I will be going to see it, but just so I can report back and keep up on the filthy dialogue being used against us, but please, go see Iron Man 3, Fastand Furious 6, Star Trek Into Darkness or Now You See Me (I saw that this weekend because Man OfSteel was sold out) instead.
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner

Saturday, June 15, 2013

I am still so sick, I can't even summon the energy to write a few lines about this amazing image. The purpose, however, of this blog is to provide you the tools to do your own critiques and develop your own awareness about your interaction with art. So I will say this: "Desolation" is one of the characters in the film; not just as it appears in the landscape above, but other ways in which it might appear (such as, for example, the "desolation of comfort," and "spiritual desolation"). So why would desolation play such an important role in the film, and how have we all ready "seen" this character in The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey? Have we seen "desolation" in other films? (Hint: Iron Man 3 and Star Trek Into Darkness).

As many of you know, I get quite ill at times. Even when I am not sick, I am not really well, either. I am truly sorry for not having posted anything at all in so long, however, I am feeling better and plan on seeing Man Of Steel this weekend. Thank you so much for checking here each day and for all the emails inquiring into how I am doing; I won't have time to respond to them all, but I can't thank you enough for your kindness and prayers! The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug has released the first trailer for the December opening; again, if you haven't read JRR Tolkien's The Hobbit, please, do so as it's a wonderful book and the film looks like it will be awesome itself:

I am still working on posts for both Tolkien's The Hobbit and The Hobbit An Unexpected Journey, and will be posting those in December to get us refreshed and ready for viewing Desolation Of Smaug. And I wasn't expecting this! 300: Rise Of An Empire has released their first trailer

There is a ton to discuss with both these trailers, but it will have to wait just a wee bit. Again, I do apologize for taking so long to get back, but it was beyond my control and I am ready to start posting again. Have a blessed weekend!
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner
P.S.--Something we must do next week is discuss, in depth, zombies. World War Z opens and that is going to change the "zombie genre" forever; I know you may not think that is important, but that's my job to persuade you otherwise. If you have not read my posts on the two most important zombie films ever made, My Favorite Zombie: Night Of the Living Dead or Being-Unto-Death: Carnival Of Souls, I will be referencing them and WWZ probably will, too, so you might at least glance at them if you have a moment.

About Me

This blog is dedicated to the glory of Jesus Christ.
Email thoughts and comments to thefineartdiner@gmail.com.
Please note: there is never just one correct interpretation, and I know that, I just rarely mention it nowadays; please do not think that, just because I have chosen to post one interpretation over another, doesn't mean that I think my interpretation is exclusively correct or other positions not possible. I would also like to point out that, we are living in a very defined, volatile culture with dynamic politics at play on the international stage and, whether you like to admit it or not, those elements go into the creation of art, which is why I include the political elements in my interpretations.
Thank you, have a nice day.